Bolaji, Nokia is a major player in mobile sector and they played well with Symbian. Now more and more new comers are coming to the market with advance features and facilities. More over nokia knows well that, Android based smart phones are going to be a big hit in market and more competition for them in coming years, which will end up in losing Nokia’s grip over the market. That means the competition becomes tighter in coming day. So in order to beat such market movements, they have to fight like anything. As a part of this strategy, they are trying for different options like collaboration with Microsoft for a period of 2 years (more or less like an experimental). I think Microsoft was going to be the winner from such dealings, by getting more exposure for their OS through a leading player like Nokia.
In my personal opinion, like Samsung having smart phone with windows OS & Android, Nokia also have to bring products with multiple OS and platforms. Nokia can also develop a new OS, which can superior to the existing one, by spend some money for research. Finally everybody’s ultimate aim is to retain the market share.
I think that Microsoft was definitely the winner coming out of this. They gained more exposure with a worldwide company that is looking at doing anything it can to regain lost ground. Nokia had to choose a new OS, preferably one from a company willing to spend millions in research. Microsoft will gain more users through Nokia than it would through its Windows Phones. Hopefully the gamble will pay off for Nokia. We as consumers benefit more by having viable choices rather than dealing with a monopoly.
I may be the minority here, but I feel (although a gut feel at this point) that the Win-Nok deal is a positive for both companies.It is way to early to write off Nokia as a leading provider of mobile device hardware and it is way too early to write off Microsoft, the leading software company, as a player in the mobile space.I think we are in store for a lot of surprises.These two companies could not be more serious about the mobile space and the stakes could not be higher.
While there may not be much for Nokia in this deal, I feel there's a lot for Microsoft in it. Microsoft's success in the mobile OS market has not been that great. A big reason for this has been the fact that they could not find good hardware platforms for their OS. I think Nokia will provide a solid hardware platform to MS and I think MS will benefit more out of this deal than Nokia will.
Backorder, I am similarly trying to understand Nokia's justification for dumping Symbian -- which had a higher market share -- for Windows OS, which was actually declining in market share. I assume Stephen Elop was more interested in the billions in R&D dollar Microsoft had promised. So, we do not disagree as far as whether Nokia should have either stayed with Symbian or adopt Google Android.
On the subject of emprical evidence, I was actually referring to the vote on the site. There's no way anyone can say with certainty today whether or not Nokia's decision was a smart one. The company chose Windows OS over Android and that was what the poll was about. Was this the company's smartest move? I don't know because there's no way anyone -- not even CEO Elop -- can be certain. A few years from now we will have the empirical data in sales returns from Nokia. Even so, we may still never be sure that if Nokia had gone the other way -- stayed with Symbian or use Android -- it would have done better or worse.
The more critical issue is what you implied in your response. Did Nokia need this change that urgently and could the company have put more efforts into Symbian? Should it have even opened this can of worms? Based on my admittedly limited knowledge of corporate reorganization, Nokia employees, suppliers, third-party partners, independent designers, etc., must be wondering what hit them. This is a sea change Stephen Elop has decided to engineer and not even he can tell me for sure he knows how this will play out. That's the only fact I can place a bet on.
You mention that readers dont have any empirical grounding for the verdict. How about the growth of different mobile OS. If the present market share was anything to go by, there was no reason to move away from Symbian. They could have tried to leverage the existing hold and customer loyalty. If growth was the factor, Android beats WindowsOS. Sounds empirical enough?
I agree that I'm sure that plenty of the "Don't knows" would have preferred that Nokia offer both Windows and Android phones, but I have another theory on why it was easy to vote "Don't know:" there is no obvious "right" choice here.
Yes, Nokia could have adopted Android. Great. But now what? There's a ton of Android phones out there. How would they differentiate themselves? And would this really solve all their problems? No, not really.
At least with Windows they're slightly "unique," but then again there are numerous and obvious downsides to this strategy which have been discussed in-depth in earlier comment threads.
While I think the majority of people agree that Symbian had to go, the choice of Windows vs. Android I think is a toss-up in the minds of many.
And if you're 50/50 or even 60/40 on something, it's very easy to shrug your shoulders and say, "I don't know."
EBN Dialogue enables and encourages you to participate in live chats with notable leaders and luminaries. Not only editors and journalists, but the entire EBN community is able to comment and ask questions. Listed below are upcoming and archived chats.
Thailand Stages a Comeback Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Microsoft Surface: Potential Winners & Losers What are the implications for the electronics industry supply chain of Microsoft Corp.'s decision to launch its own tablet PC? Join industry veteran and EE Times' systems and OEM expert Rick Merritt on Tuesday, July 3, at 12:00 pm EDT for a Live Chat on this subject.
Join EBN contributor Jennifer Baljko on Thursday August 23, 2012, at 11:00 a.m. EST for a live chat on how electronic manufacturers in Thailand have shored up their supply chain to reduce the impact of future natural disasters.
Peter Drucker famously said "Trying to predict the future is like trying to drive down a country road at night with no lights while looking out the back window." Yet in the razor's-edge world of electronics—with a lean supply chain and just-in-time demands—the need to know the future is vital.
While no one really can accurately predict the future, we can take guidance from another Drucker saying which is the best way to predict the future is to create it.
You've heard the saying "the No. 1 supply chain risk is your people." That hasn't always been the case. But today's complex global supply chain requires a new type of multitalented employee. It's one who understands, finance, marketing, economics, is savvy with technology, graceful with relationships and can think analytically.
Where are these people? Are universities properly preparing the next generation supply chain professionals? How do train your existing workforce for these new, demanding positions?
Brian Fuller, editor-in-chief of EBN, will lead a 60-minute Avnet Velocity panel discussion that will ask and answer these and other questions swirling around today's supply-chain talent challenges.